[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: ooo missed this one - this will stir the BAND pot
2009/11/13 ralphchapman <email@example.com>:
> As scientists - and all part gadfly as well - we should all be happy to see
> people trying to blow holes in all current majority opinions and I think
> everyone discussing this on and off feel that way. The problem with the
> usual suspects is that their arguments are almost inevitably terribly flawed
> and, at times, very illogical.
Do not want to be boring, but accepting their opinion is illogical,
fallacious, or that the conclusions do not follow from the premises...
What is the problem with them expressing their ideas, as wrong as they
are? How many wrong people are there who make know their wrong ideas,
out of the scientific world, and we need to tolerate as long as they
are not harmful for some?
I think we should not ask for a consensus around the most supported
idea, and accept there is people who, because of certain bias or
problems with publicly admitting they are wrong, cannot accept it. The
most reasonable idea (in this case, dinosaurian ancestry of birds) is
supported by the larger amount of evidence it conforms with, not by
unanimous consensus. This greater empirical support should conform